You will be redirected back to your article in seconds
Back to IndieWire

Pixar’s Films Are Average and You Know It

Pixar's Films Are Average and You Know It

Lauded, showered with praise and
awards, raking in billions at the box office, and beloved by audiences
everywhere. Pixar films have made a significant impact on contemporary culture.
Yet by digging just a little bit beneath the surface, it’s regrettably obvious
that Pixar’s films are far from cutting edge: they’re rather average. The
emperor isn’t wearing any clothes, but everyone believes he’s wearing the
finest robes.

 

This may be hard to accept and it’s
going to take some explanation. So let’s set the parameters so that this most
explosive of statements isn’t misconstrued. The argument is based purely on
artistic merit and creativity and that means:

1.     Box office grosses are no indicator of either

2.     Awards are not an impartial form of measurement

3.     Taste is personal and just because you think Pixar’s
films are the best doesn’t mean they actually are the best

 

Why is it necessary to exclude these
parameters? Because they are subjective and open to manipulation. Box office
grosses are too closely tied to marketing budgets, awards are at the whim of
private organizations or studios, and individual taste goes without saying. As
proof, I freely admit that the generally panned Goro Miyazaki film Tales from
Earthsea
is a personal favorite. Such a statement alludes to my taste in
animated films, but it does not affect my ability to persuade you that it is
the best using irrefutable facts.

 

Back to Pixar though, and to say that
they make average films is to place them halfway between the extremes. The
studio does not make bad films, (of that their technical and creative talent is
obvious,) but how far away from the other extreme do they fall?

 

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The
Secret of Kells
, and My Neighbor Totoro all lie much closer to generally
accepted animated excellence (for differing reasons of course.) In contrast to
these films, Pixar’s are remarkably safe. They convey a narrowly defined range
of themes, they are content to reuse a ‘house style’, and sequels aside (another
demerit), their stories are far from unique to filmmaking as a whole.

 

As a result. no Pixar film has pushed
the artistic envelope: they have appeared to without actually doing so. They
have not revolutionized animated filmmaking outside of their technology. Their
films have sparked imitators aplenty, but then financial success will always do
that. What Pixar’s films haven’t done, is inspire others to make a
creative leap. The Looney Tunes and MGM shorts of the day developed as
rapidly as they did because the teams behind them were determined to outdo each
other creatively. Today, animated films (and especially CGI ones) do not
compete creatively, but rather financially. Studios create with an eye to
outdoing another studio at the box office first and foremost; any artistic developments
as a result are rather coincidental. After all, no studio was inspired to
create a CGI film because of Pixar’s artistic genius, they saw a concept that
was profitable and wanted a piece of the pie for themselves!

 

To get to the crunch of the issue, you
have to consider how Pixar’s films are viewed by the general population. A
cross-section of society will reveal fans in every age, race, gender, and
socio-economic bracket. Their films appeal to all, and in turn are remarkably
popular. This is possible primarily because the films are
average. They do not appeal to anyone in particular, and as a result, appeal to
all. In doing so, they out their average-ness. As evidence that this is true,
here’s Simon Cowell explaining why he’s been so successful at finding musical stars:

I have average tastes. If you looked in my collection
of DVDs, you’d see
Jaws
and Star Wars. In the book library, you’d see John Grisham and
Sidney Sheldon. And if you look in my fridge, it’s children’s food — chips,
milkshakes, yogurt.”

 

Nobody denies that Jaws and Star Wars
are not great films, but artistically they are decidedly middle-of-the-road
blockbusters. For large-budget films looking to break records, pushing the
boundary is too risky, and promises too little reward. Studios that decide to
put hundreds of millions of dollars into a production are extremely careful
that they will make that money back, and that contrasts with many independents
and smaller studios, who are often happy just to get a film made and seen by
people. As a result, they take greater liberties with financial restraints, and
can push artistic boundaries as a result.

 

Does this perhaps exemplify that
Pixar’s business model is actually to avoid creating superb films? Walt Disney
recognized that it was shorts that made his bread and butter, but that features
promised a route to explore then untried aspects of animation. Imagine if Pixar
released a film with casual abandon of all financial goals. Imagine if John
Lasseter was told to make the best film he could. Would such a film look
anything like the Pixar films we’ve seen until now? I very much doubt it. For
all the artistic talent that resides within Pixar, it has to either be
fantastically wasted, or not as great as we’ve been led to believe.

 

At the end of the day, it’s fine to
look to Pixar as a model for certain things such as its CGI technology, its
managerial structure, or even its campus; but to look to them as a creative
leader and innovator is wrong. They do not reside on the cutting edge of
feature animation, and to accept such a belief is to drink some very strong
Kool-Aid.

This Article is related to: Features and tagged